Gender, risk, and presentation of self in “caring” prison work: Insights from institutional parole officers in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While scholars have investigated how prison workers understand and navigate occupational risks through performances of gender, most studies have focused on staff in security roles whose organizational cultures value displays of masculinities premised on characteristics such as toughness and stoicism. Less scholarly attention has considered how prison staff in nonsecurity roles, who perform duties oriented toward using interpersonal skills and helping others—characteristics that are commonly associated with female‐dominated helping professions—understand and navigate risk through gendered forms of impression management. The current study explores the question of how one such occupational group, institutional parole officers (IPOs) working in Canadian federal prisons, performs gender in response to both their perceptions of workplace risk and their occupational, and often personal, commitment to supporting the rehabilitation of prisoners. We organize and analyze our findings using Goffman's (1959) theory of impression management to demonstrate that IPOs, as they attempt to both support prisoners and mitigate the perceived risks of a prison workplace, perform gendered presentations of self that fluidly incorporate aspects of masculinities and femininities. However, we also argue that female IPOs experience greater feelings of workplace vulnerabilities and, thus, perform more impression management labor than their male counterparts. Our analysis thus deepens the limited literature on gendered presentations of self among nonsecurity prison workers by situating gender performances within the occupational risks experienced in the prison workplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".